Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by _Q_

The old Wembley was standing there since 1923. When it got outdated, it was replaced... like a world class city would do. Before 1923, I'm sure London had an adequate stadium though, similar to McMahon.

Old Wembley was closed in 2000, new Wembley opened in 2007. If the presence of the stadium was so crucial to London being a world class city I suppose London was off that list for 7 years, right?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by nik-

My problem is allocating public funds so we have the "right" to get charged more to watch the same thing in a new building, not the allocation of public funds in general.

Yeah, there's definitely something off with paying for the construction of a building, and then paying even more to use it. I'm ok with giving some money from public funds, but the public needs to get something in return..... ie. a portion of parking/concession revenue until costs are 100% recouped. Treat it more like a really low interest-rate loan....but a loan nonetheless.

I'd also be in favor of a system where you could allocate a portion of your taxes to certain projects or streams. And if you chose to allocate it towards a stadium, you'd get some sort of discounted rate for events there. People who don't, won't have to pay into it....but will have to pay more money to use it if they ever choose to.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

1) Lebanon is a terrible place to live or visit right now. Dangerous and poor.
2) Some stadiums are a tourist spot. Others have mentioned some but also in Milan many guidebooks suggest a tour of AC and Inters football stadium. Obviously no one will want to visit a hockey arena or a CFL football stadium, but some of the European football stadiums are remarkable. Or Jerry-world in Dallas.

How do you know? Have you been there?

Was there about 2 years ago and I had an incredible time. Not dangerous at all.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How are my arguments weak? Honest question.

I wouldn't make Wembley or Alianz a main reason to visit London or Munich. But since I'm a sports and architecture fan, I would definitely go check them out if I'm in the area (which I did when I went to Munich). Why people travel is completely different for each individual. It's a bit ignorant to think that people should all travel for the same reasons you do.

They're inane and usually have nothing to do with what we're actually discussing. I mean really, bringing Lebanon and Syria into this conversation and then patting yourself on the back for making a good point? I honestly think you've got to be trolling us right now, as this cannot be real.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, there's definitely something off with paying for the construction of a building, and then paying even more to use it. I'm ok with giving some money from public funds, but the public needs to get something in return..... ie. a portion of parking/concession revenue until costs are 100% recouped. Treat it more like a really low interest-rate loan....but a loan nonetheless.

I'd also be in favor of a system where you could allocate a portion of your taxes to certain projects or streams. And if you chose to allocate it towards a stadium, you'd get some sort of discounted rate for events there. People who don't, won't have to pay into it....but will have to pay more money to use it if they ever choose to.

I like that idea a lot, unfortunately it's likely overly complicated for most places to implement. Or at least it would become overly complicated, because on it's face it's rather simple.

[stanleycup1989]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

If they ever put this to a vote, I know I would support some public funds to build an arena.

I know I wouldn't.

[CaptainCrunch]

All I want is 4 Flame throwers one on each corner of the building that shoot flames 1000 feet in the air everytime a Flame, Roughneck or Hitman scores.

or can blast fireballs into space to the beat of the music played during concerts.

Every three days I want the building to bellow "Remember me" or other random statements.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

They're inane and usually have nothing to do with what we're actually discussing. I mean really, bringing Lebanon and Syria into this conversation and then patting yourself on the back for making a good point? I honestly think you've got to be trolling us right now, as this cannot be real.

I'm bringing 3rd world countries into it to show they have better stadiums than us. It's a valid argument, whether you agree with it or not is up to you. Then I bring up cities like London, Munich, Chicago, Toronto and show how awesome their stadiums are and we should be setting the bar that high.

I honestly don't see an issue with this... and yes, it's real.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, there's definitely something off with paying for the construction of a building, and then paying even more to use it. I'm ok with giving some money from public funds, but the public needs to get something in return..... ie. a portion of parking/concession revenue until costs are 100% recouped. Treat it more like a really low interest-rate loan....but a loan nonetheless.

I'd also be in favor of a system where you could allocate a portion of your taxes to certain projects or streams. And if you chose to allocate it towards a stadium, you'd get some sort of discounted rate for events there. People who don't, won't have to pay into it....but will have to pay more money to use it if they ever choose to.

What about instead of a portion of your tax, its a voluntary payment on top of your taxes?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, there's definitely something off with paying for the construction of a building, and then paying even more to use it. I'm ok with giving some money from public funds, but the public needs to get something in return..... ie. a portion of parking/concession revenue until costs are 100% recouped. Treat it more like a really low interest-rate loan....but a loan nonetheless.

They already pretty much do this with Personal Seat Licenses. And not surprisingly a lot of fans hate it.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by valo403

What events would skip Calgary if McMahon was not replaced? A U2 concert every 5 years? And that's assuming that renovations wouldn't solve the problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle8146553/

“Is it worth spending limited tax dollars so that Lady Gaga may or may not come, and few can afford a ticket? I don't see it,” Mr. Nenshi wrote. “I called the biggest concert promoter in Canada and they said 1-2 concerts a year skip Calgary. Is that worth half-a-billion?”

This is what came up when I googled it. This only applies to the Saddledome. I not to sure about McMahon.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by valo403

Or you know, the University of Michigan (just a tiny football program, you may have heard of it). Maybe Michigan State? Notre Dame? But feel free to keep up your current line of argument, it's great at not addressing anything and confirming that you don't know what you're talking about.

I like that you somehow think the owner doesn't have reason to exaggerate the need. Who do you think benefits most from a renovation? Fans ALWAYS think the grass is greener, but the reality is that the stadium experience at McMahon differs little from that at any non-NFL stadium in North America.

Btw, I've said repeatedly that a renovation is required.

I have addressed it. Comparing it to Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame etc. is a useless exercise when you are not even on par with the facilities in your own league. Not sure why that's so hard to follow. I'm sure they are all great programs and I've never been so I guess you win the $#@% measuring contest of all the awesome places you've been.

If the building is adequate, why is a renovation required?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I'm bringing 3rd world countries into it to show they have better stadiums than us. It's a valid argument, whether you agree with it or not is up to you. Then I bring up cities like London, Munich, Chicago, Toronto and show how awesome their stadiums are and we should be setting the bar that high.

I honestly don't see an issue with this... and yes, it's real.

No it's a very stupid point, exceedingly stupid I'd say, and the fact you can't see that even after I explained it to you, explicitly, is why I no longer am going to respond to your posts.

I will give you one final hint, maybe you'll get the drift...it isnt hard to have awesome, new, publically funded stadiums when you don't care about nor spend any money on the well being of your citizens.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What about instead of a portion of your tax, its a voluntary payment on top of your taxes?

Or how about a tax on all tickets using the venues? Even tax concessions at a higher rate than the standard 5% GST to recoup some of the $$.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by valo403

I like that idea a lot, unfortunately it's likely overly complicated for most places to implement. Or at least it would become overly complicated, because on it's face it's rather simple.

Yeah, probably much more complicated in reality, but the way I see it, every year during your tax/property assessments, you fill out one extra section on your forms where you can choose to allocate a certain % of taxes to specific categories ( Arts / Sports / Children's Events / Environmental causes etc.). I see it more like a bonus allotment type of deal....the basics we all share would still be funded regularly, but this is that last 5-10% or whatever.

The city could issue some sort of "Citizen Card" to Calgarians where everyone has their own unique number (or just use your SIN to make it more efficient). If you go to a public pool and you supported it, hey, show your card and get a discounted rate. Same with museums, events at a new stadium etc.

Obviously just a quick though of how it might function, but I'm sure smarter people than me could figure out a way to make it work.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

No it's a very stupid point, exceedingly stupid I'd say, and the fact you can't see that even after I explained it to you, explicitly, is why I no longer am going to respond to your posts.

I will give you one final hint, maybe you'll get the drift...it isnt hard to have awesome, new, publically funded stadiums when you don't care about nor spend any money on the well being of your citizens.

And I agree with that. Honestly I do, but that's kind of my point.

Shouldn't a country as awesome as Canada and a city as awesome as Calgary be able to fund stadiums that are better than Syria's or Lebanon's as well as fund other important things here because we're so much better?

That was the whole point of my argument.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I'm bringing 3rd world countries into it to show they have better stadiums than us. It's a valid argument, whether you agree with it or not is up to you. Then I bring up cities like London, Munich, Chicago, Toronto and show how awesome their stadiums are and we should be setting the bar that high.

I honestly don't see an issue with this... and yes, it's real.

Wait, you were referencing Wrigley as an example of an awesome stadium? I mean I love Wrigley, one of the best places to watch a game, but if that's something we're shooting for we'd be better off renovating by sending in a bunch of hobos to piss everywhere, a few guys with sledgehammers to break some things, closing off some areas on the concourse to make it as narrow as possible and closing all the parking lots.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by _Q_

And I agree with that. Honestly I do, but that's kind of my point.

Shouldn't a country as awesome as Canada and a city as awesome as Calgary be able to fund stadiums that are better than Syria's or Lebanon's as well as fund other important things here because we're so much better?

That was the whole point of my argument.

No, no civilization can just fund everything.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Wrigley is considered one of the worst stadiums in sports. It's just a gigantic bar pretty much. It has character and history, and thats why they'll be there for a long time.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I have addressed it. Comparing it to Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame etc. is a useless exercise when you are not even on par with the facilities in your own league. Not sure why that's so hard to follow. I'm sure they are all great programs and I've never been so I guess you win the $#@% measuring contest of all the awesome places you've been.

If the building is adequate, why is a renovation required?

Huh? It would be adequate with renovations. I have said this multiple times.

These renovations would also put it right on par with other CFL stadiums.